Insular governments tend to be unhealthy governments

There are a few sure symptoms of a government that has gotten far too insular. Sadly, it seems Premier Brad Wall’s Saskatchewan Party government is displaying far too many of those symptoms right now.

The more positive prognosis for the Wall government’s condition is that it hasn’t progressed to the point where it’s ignoring all public complaints. This should offer a little hope to Sask. Party supporters that whatever ails this government isn’t yet fatal.

Evidence of this can be found in the government’s decision to walk back its 2017-18 budget decision to cut $4.8 million in library funding, restore some level of grants-in-lieu for some urban communities and Monday’s decision to restore more than half the cuts it made to funding of funeral costs for the indigent.

A contrite Social Services Minister Tina Beaudry-Mellor confessed her government made a mistake when it cut funding of funeral services for the poor from $3,850 to $2,100 in an effort to save $1 million. On Monday, Beaudry-Mellor said it would top up the $2,100 by paying as much as $700 more for funeral services or rituals, and would change its approach to embalming. The moves reduce the government’s projected savings to only $400,000 from the original projected $1 million in savings.

It certainly was not enough for some critics of the Sask. Party, who now have blood in their teeth and want a total restoration of funding. They also seem to want a reinstatement of the Saskatchewan Transportation Company (STC). That isn’t going to happen.

But if the issue is Saskatchewan’s tired old political tribalism, the Wall government needs to take a long, hard look at itself before it attempts to place the blame on its critics.

Consider the Saskatchewan Health Authority’s highly politically charged appointments — a classic case of a government that is far too insular.

This is a government that can’t even vet the right partisans for board appointments, as indicated by Health Minister Jim Reiter’s explanation that Rae did not undergo “significant vetting” because he was “already in the system.” He was previously the politically appointed chair of the Sunrise Regional Health Authority board.

Really? If this Sask. Party government was selecting a candidate or was hiring for the most junior ministerial assistant position, the first thing it would do is check out the prospective employees’ Facebook pages for inappropriate postings.

Unfortunately, the only vetting the Sask. Party seems truly interested in is vetting for partisans who are compliant when it comes to following Sask. Party government wishes. Perhaps this is nothing new. The old NDP government was horrific for peppering boards with partisans, and even assigning party commissars to jobs in Crown corporations to ensure the wishes of government were carried out.

Were this a less insular government, it might have demonstrated some progress from the very things it used to criticize the NDP for. It could have sought out career health professionals, administrators or policy analysts to form the majority of the new super health board.

But this is a government so insular that it now lashes out at any criticism in a personal and vindictive way.

The latest example is an inappropriately nasty letter from Finance Minister Kevin Doherty to Maclean’s over a piece largely about Wall’s decline in popularity. Rather than go after the content of the piece, Doherty’s letter was largely a personal smear campaign on the credibility of its Saskatoon based-author Tammy Robert. That was followed by an aggressive Twitter campaign in which the Saskatchewan Party’s feed called the piece an NDP narrative.

The real narrative in play here is one of a Sask. Party government that makes its decisions in isolation, only backpedals when public pressure makes it obvious that it is dead wrong and viciously goes after critics who might dare point that out.

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.

Whether Gerald Stanley's version of events was convincing or a fabrication, the presumption of innocence does not require Stanley to prove his story, but requires the Crown to disprove it, writes John Gormley.